Right to repair not right to upgrade that's why it's easier for Apple to support it and it makes them look good.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Supports Right to Repair Bill in California
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
on an Apple silicon Mac what is there to repair?
All the YouTube techs have come to the same conclusion. non upgradable . non repairable.
all the parts are somehow electronically serialized just like an iPhone.
All the YouTube techs have come to the same conclusion. non upgradable . non repairable.
all the parts are somehow electronically serialized just like an iPhone.
Prices go up because this first came to my mind. what this service does cause costs the end product end prices to 🆙.
Yeah I've been checking there and it seems like all the 12.9" 5th gen displays from 2021 are MIA. I saw some online but they said LCD and seemed on the cheaper side and kinda sketch. I've never broken a display before, and I'm not even sure that I actually broke it because it just seemed to magically break on it's own inside of my bag when it wasn't being used, so I'm really new to having to source parts and is why we really need strong legislation around this. I shouldn't have to pay another $1500 to replace this iPad just because the display is cracked with pieces falling out. I got it taped up now with packing tape it's so sad.
I’m sure everyone will remain mature and rational and sees this as a win instead of coming up with conspiracy theories completely void of any shred evidence.
Similarly, I’m sure no one will misconstrue this with some made up meaning about how this will make upgrading easier, completely ignoring the fact that pretty much everything is soldered to the board.
Similarly, I’m sure no one will misconstrue this with some made up meaning about how this will make upgrading easier, completely ignoring the fact that pretty much everything is soldered to the board.
Last edited:
Something else to add is ram prices tend to drop with time and might not be needed early but it becomes a very cheap upgrade to greatly extend the life of a machine and a massive along with cheap upgrade.What the anti-right to repair bros fail to realize is that by making something easier to repair, it can also mean easier to upgrade. That can save you money since you won't have to pay Apple's ridiculous memory and storage upgrade prices... back when you could upgrade the RAM and storage. Instead of Apple forcing you to buy upgrades from them, you would be able to get aftermarket upgrades at a significant discount.
Example:
Third-Party RAM for 27-inch iMac Still Far More Affordable Than Apple's Checkout Upgrade Options
Apple yesterday announced a new 27-inch iMac with faster 10th-generation Intel Core processor options, next-generation AMD graphics, and up to a...www.macrumors.com
To max out the RAM at checkout, Apple charges an additional $2,600, which is like buying another whole iMac. Fortunately, the memory in the 27-inch iMac is user-replaceable thanks to the easily-accessible memory backdoor slot, and there are far more affordable options available from third parties.
OWC offers 128GB of DDR4 PC4-21300 RAM that's compatible with the 27-inch iMac. The total cost on Amazon is $599.99, or $2,000 less than Apple charges its customers. These are the OWC memory upgrade kits available, compared to the prices that you'd pay when purchasing an iMac from Apple:
128GB (4 x 32GB DIMMs) – $599 at Amazon ($2,600 at Apple checkout).
64GB (4 x 16GB DIMMs) - $269 at Amazon ($1,000 at Apple checkout).
32GB (2 x 16GB DIMMs) - $135 at Amazon ($400 at Apple checkout).
Peoples needs change over time. Not everyone can anticipate what their future needs/use case will be. By making Macs easy to upgrade, you can save money by upgrading it down the road if needs/use case changes vs buying a new one.
I remember back in college I added a few more years to my laptop back then to give it a few more years of life for dirt cheap by doubling its ran from 256 meg to 512, might of been 1 gig. It was almost 20 years ago and it was cheap parts taken from a dead laptop of a friend.
But come on it was a 10 buck upgrade that might of been a lot more when the laptop was new.
Good to hear this. But difficult to repair devices using Apple's self repair kit
The correct term is after market part. counterfeit part would be a part that claims to be an Apple part and is not. It is a part that it claims not to be.
now having to disclosed they are using an Aftermarket part I am fine with. That has been done for years in car repear. It is either an OEM part or it is an aftermarket part. Also one can be an OEM supplier but not an OEM part. Common example is OEM windshield in car vs an OEM supplier windshield. Often time OEM have striker rules on how many times a dye can be used to make the class and tighter tolerances. So the supplier part might be cut from a die that pass teh max number of uses for OEM but not enough to retire the die.
Umm lets see you really don't add that much if any additional warehouse for inventory on it. Most of the parts are part of the standard supply chain for what they would keep on hand just making the phone or small supply of parts. The parts really are fairly common so not even that just drop ship them from the manufacture who already doing it.
I think you are just grasping at straws to defend apple intentionally making their phones harder to repair. There is ample things form tear downs that screams nothing but making repairs harder. Things like massive extra amount of glue on parts needed to be gluded together. Order how parts are put in to the phone to make the most comon repears harder to do. Using screws on older phones that there is no head for to remove and was WORSE for machines not metter to assempble but they had the patent on the screw so they could prevent someone making a screw driver that worked on it.
Thinks like that?
Apple has a long history of making throw away products.
You mean a program that was over charged, was not cheap and cost a pretty penny to do it. Required a lot of money to get everything shipped to you and locked up for repairs. It was set up intentationally so no one would really want to us it.
Not a great example to counter with. Any one with 1/2 a brain could see that progrm was set up on purpose to fail.
I treat my expensive technology carefully. Take a peek outside your personal experience.
Anytime a company supports legislation you can be sure that they are benefitting from it. Businesses don’t like laws that dictate how they operate.
Don't really know what you're saying here.
When you need to provide parts/service for billions of devices sold, you absolutely have a large inventory bill.
I'm not going to pretend to know how exactly a global tech company runs and provides service/parts for this many phones. You shouldn't either.
If you're thinking these are just off the shelf parts, Apple can just sign 1-2 contracts whenever they want, lease 1-2 warehouses to store parts, hire a couple of people to package and ship, you're severely mistaken.
Alright, that pretty much says it all. That is absolutely ridiculous.
Have a good one.
If they kept the serializing to *just* the security-critical components, it would be fine by me. That's nothing new, it's been this way since the iPhone 5S days with the introduction of TouchID (I was one of the unlucky customers who managed to obliterate my TouchID button with my iliac bone on a bad fall, but it was old anyway and I completely understand the security angle).
One can only hope the European Parliament is paying close attention to this development and tries to pass a similar law that specifically prevents frivolous serializing. I actually trust them to force Apple to do the right thing and call them on their bs if they attempt to use security as an excuse to lock down all the components in a device (the flash and back glass being the most ridiculous ones I've just heard they're serializing now, if you ask me…).
Also, since the EU is now mandating user-replaceable batteries, they might as well mandate easy separation of components, which could maybe make screen repairs easier and independent from said security-critical components. If the law is worded properly, it could very well stop Apple on their tracks and use glue as a weapon against it. Sure, this would result in “design by committee” and force Apple and other manufacturers into some compromises, but I seriously don't get the angle of some commenters here, treating broken screens as if they were a rare occurrence; they absolutely are not, and their repair shouldn't be the exclusive purview of the manufacturers' first-party repair services, period.
Last edited:
MacBooks get less and less repairable. Even if you have two copies of the same model and then switch their displays, the displays no longer work properly. It seems Apple made it intentionally harder to switch displays:
"Anti-consumer"
Then don't buy it.
Remember when Steve said: "That’s what a lot of customers pay us to do, is to try to make the best products we can. And if we succeed, they’ll buy them. And if we don’t, they won’t. And it’ll all work itself out."
Just let the market decide. It's very simple.
Then don't buy it.
Remember when Steve said: "That’s what a lot of customers pay us to do, is to try to make the best products we can. And if we succeed, they’ll buy them. And if we don’t, they won’t. And it’ll all work itself out."
Just let the market decide. It's very simple.
Exactly. The European Parliament could pass amendments to that law, or a new one based on it, that expanded it to include more specific components, or even all non-security-critical ones. These two legal precedents, combined, are sort of a Pandora's box that can't ever be closed again (if consumers actually appreciate these first battery- and USB-C-related rules, it may be too hard for Apple to successfully lobby against new ones).
Apple is just using aggressive verbiage to make repair shops look bad while the law is being discussed and passed. Once it's enacted, independent repair shops just have to take that “fourth option”, and call them either “new Apple part”, “used Apple part”, “new Grade A aftermarket part”, etc., and boom, Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on anymore. They can call them “counterfeit” all they want, but obviously repair shops will either have their own legal counsel to advise them on that or just adhere to a sensible standard that doesn't run afoul of said law.
What remains to be seen is whether Apple can challenge shops that do what Rossmann does, i.e. source original parts (which Apple will *never* in a million years distribute wholesale) from donor boards, and very much legitimately resell them as original, used Apple parts, even if they don't exactly bear a specific Part # (think surface-mounted components, such as chips). It should be interesting to watch, because if Apple Legal does challenge them and such cases ever go to court in California (or, worse even, the SCOTUS), Apple and even other large companies (including the infamous automakers, agricultural gear makers, etc.) stand to lose big.
Last edited:
I’m hoping Apple will come up a “safe purchase” item that will let you check if the device you’re buying (second-hand) has been serviced by Apple throughout its life.
Any parts attempts to open the case by Johnny Honest’s Hobby Repair Shop will trip a flag to alert potential buyers. Then you’re free to assume the risk if you’re happy to do so.
While I not only agree about upgrade prices, but I am also very outspoken about them, making them user-replacable again would be a technological step backwards, especially with memory.What the anti-right to repair bros fail to realize is that by making something easier to repair, it can also mean easier to upgrade. That can save you money since you won't have to pay Apple's ridiculous memory and storage upgrade prices... back when you could upgrade the RAM and storage. Instead of Apple forcing you to buy upgrades from them, you would be able to get aftermarket upgrades at a significant discount.
Example:
Third-Party RAM for 27-inch iMac Still Far More Affordable Than Apple's Checkout Upgrade Options
Apple yesterday announced a new 27-inch iMac with faster 10th-generation Intel Core processor options, next-generation AMD graphics, and up to a...
To max out the RAM at checkout, Apple charges an additional $2,600, which is like buying another whole iMac. Fortunately, the memory in the 27-inch iMac is user-replaceable thanks to the easily-accessible memory backdoor slot, and there are far more affordable options available from third parties.
OWC offers 128GB of DDR4 PC4-21300 RAM that's compatible with the 27-inch iMac. The total cost on Amazon is $599.99, or $2,000 less than Apple charges its customers. These are the OWC memory upgrade kits available, compared to the prices that you'd pay when purchasing an iMac from Apple:
128GB (4 x 32GB DIMMs) – $599 at Amazon ($2,600 at Apple checkout).
64GB (4 x 16GB DIMMs) - $269 at Amazon ($1,000 at Apple checkout).
32GB (2 x 16GB DIMMs) - $135 at Amazon ($400 at Apple checkout).
Peoples needs change over time. Not everyone can anticipate what their future needs/use case will be. By making Macs easy to upgrade, you can save money by upgrading it down the road if needs/use case changes vs buying a new one.
I am more than happy to take my device once in 2-3 years to a shop for battery replacement if it means I have a more compact device. EU is just idiotic for cheap political points, again.
I had an iPod touch 2 and an iPod shuffle die on me for no apparent reason.
In both cases, I sent them in and got devices back that had different serial numbers.
How would that work?
I don't find the idea bad, mind you. But you'd either need the serial number of the device before buying it or the device itself to connect to the internet and check.
At least around here people usually blur the serial number in pictures on platforms like eBay. Unless that in itself would already be a reason not to buy the device.
I just recently upgraded an Air M1 8 GB to 16 GB, due to new work applications.
It's really simple, just with a different method than the "normal" one with opening the lid and inserting some modules;
I sold the 8 GB Air, and bought a another with 16 GB...
Now, I don't usually comment on forums, but you've given such a monumentally Apple-biased take that it makes me wonder whether or not you realize the insane degree of mental gymnastics you've performed.
Let's keep things simple.
The main reason why people are in support of right to repair is to prevent Apple from succeeding in the creation of its anti-repair monopoly. Take simple battery replacements, for example—a basic form of maintenance that virtually every portable device will require at some point. Apple wants $89 to replace the battery on my 3 year old iPhone 11 Pro. Not the cheapest, but at least somewhat palatable for folks who aren't struggling in life. Heck, if I can tolerate some warning messages on my phone, I can just go to some local repair shop to have it replaced for $40.
Now, imagine if Apple were to go further than simply displaying warning messages on my phone, and outright disable my device if it detects a non-genuine battery. Oh well, have to get the battery replaced for $89; no big deal I guess. They know their devices best, after all! Alas, all of a sudden, Apple raises the price of battery replacements to $199, stating inflation and volatile market conditions as their reasoning. I don't have any other choice—Apple's the only one that can service the batteries, and as such, they're free to dictate the market price. Just like that, my perfectly functional but now 3-year old iPhone (that sells for $350) isn't worth fixing anymore. Either I deal with the poor battery life, pony up the cash for a new device, or pound sand.
Don't act like this is some crazy dystopian slippery slope that I just came up with to antagonize Apple; it's already happening right in front of you. Memory and storage upgrades for Apple devices cost nearly ten times as much as the current market price, which they're able to get away with because those components are all soldered now. The only reason that the same thing hasn't happened with basic repairs like screen/battery replacements is because of the availability of cheaper and relatively abundant third-party options.
Oh, and don't even get me started on the added supply-chain costs for logistics and warehousing. I can assure you that Apple also spent (and is currently spending) a significant amount of cash on R&D for serializing individual components and building highly specialized one-off machines which have the sole job of reprogramming them, the costs of which have already been passed on to us consumers.
TL;DR: Right to repair prevents Apple from monopolizing the industry and bringing service costs to the moon, while engineering devices to be difficult to fix arguably costs more than just allowing third-party repair.
Last edited: